Secondary Navigation

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree

... I just wanted to make sure you had seen it; you are right that it doesn t change the point. Using honorary degrees as a source of authority is indeed

Message 1 of 35
, Jan 7, 2008

Samantha E wrote:

> Larry Bump wrote:
> Did you click to this page?
>
> http://www.preserve dwords.com/ institute2. htm
> <http://www.preservedwords.com/institute2.htm>
>
> Good evening Mr. Bump,
> Yes I did and that's precisely the point in a way. The whole idea is a
> bunch of hog-wash, but how many people who read the SWRB e-mail-outs are
> really going to investigate whether or not Reg Barrow's PhD is authentic
> or fake? It's a pity that fake ones exist and that people like Reg
> Barrow take advantage of them (assuming that's what has happened since
> we haven't "heard from the horse's mouth"). Unless he really has
> obtained a PhD, he is going to have some very serious answering to do at
> the Judgment Seat for a violation of the 9th commandment, never mind
> anything else. May God grant him the grace to repent before then.
> ~Samantha

I just wanted to make sure you had seen it; you are right that it
doesn't change the point.
Using honorary degrees as a source of authority is indeed lying.

What about degrees granted in recognition of "life experience"? I have
often wondered how much those are worth. I guess it all depends on who
granted it and how much you trust them.

> the complete Word of God in the originals, or did they not? (And > incidentally they referred to the extant manuscripts etc as > 'originals').>

Excellent question/reminder, Gary.

As Hills among others makes plain, the orthodox position is that God has preserved his infallible word in the common use by the Greek speaking church of its faithful copies/apographa of the original autographa. To be constantly on edge wondering when a new manuscript will turn up and overturn all that we know, be it even the Koran or the Book of Mormon, much less the five providentially discarded manuscripts of higher textual criticism is to have forsaken the Reformed/confessional point of view.

Letis, whatever his faults, points out the development of the doctrine of providential preservation in his essays on Beza and Owen (particularly in the diagram on p.147) in The Majority Text: Essays in the Continuing Debate which he also edited. (The title is something of a misnomer. Only Part 1 regards the Majority Text. Parts 2 and 3 concern the AV and the TR respectively.) To the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Rome answered, which version? There are many variants, much more aha, the most faithful copy, Codex B or Vaticanus is found in the Pope's library. Protestantism answered with the corresponding doctrine of providential preservation in WCF 1:8. It is confessed even more explicitly in the first three Canons of the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) which I have never been able to find in print, but found on the web here.

Yet as one of the two principium of theology, the doctrine of Scripture must be held in its entirety and completeness or not only will it unravel, but also else besides. Not for nothing is the doctrine of Scripture the first chapter of the WCF in contrast with most confessions which begin with the doctrine of God. And providential preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration. Without it, we are lost. While on the one hand, if we never had an infallible revelation from God, we could never know what we are to believe about him or what duty he requires of us (LC Q&A5, SC Q&A3). But the more subtle denial of providential preservation, in the end, amounts to the same thing.

For all practical purposes, that faithful infallible revelation happened long ago and far away in some other galaxy. At best we would have to go to the Vatican and humbly request permission to use her library. And just when do we think Rome would give Protestantism liberty of the stacks? Either that or we could wait anxiously with baited breath upon the latest pronouncements of the textual scholars who will eventually give us the Historical Text, even as they have given us the Historical Jesus. Oh happy and hypothetical day. It is not going to happen.

There has been some discussion of this topic over at the Puritan Board. One thread is here. Rafalsky is the guy defending the confessional viewpoint, though IMO he seems to rely too much on the KJVOnlyites on other points than their pet hobbyhorse. Still as he says, `I won't flip out if you quote the liberal Bruce Metzger, so don't flip out if I quote Peter Ruckman'. Fair enough as a certain party in Edmonton used to say.